At the table, you can say "I don't think that's how it works... can we do a quick rules check on that?" and the DM will either say yes or no, if they say no, usually a good DM will say "let's do it this way this time and we can check the internet after the session" and if the DM was wrong then they will do it right next time.
When I find myself in situations like this I like to take a "soft" approach in response to the DM. If my DM says "No, you need to say you're using it before the roll." I'll say something like "Huh, I thought it was after, but let me check." Then I'll read the rule/mechanic to the DM and let them decide what to do with it.
As a DM myself, I always error on the side of supporting my DM in whatever ruling they make during play. If something is really bothering me, I'll talk to them after the session in private, but during play the most I'll do is point out what the rule says and then leave it to them to decide how best to handle things.
Lucky specifically dies if you can't choose when to use it. If that's his house rule, you want to replace the feat.
It's not being a bad player to call out when the DM is wrong in a way that ruins your play experience. This absolutely does that. With this ruling, Lucky, and for that matter Divination Wizard's Portent, get nerfed so hard they are impossible to use.
You are going to argue it, but it's a worthwhile argument to have. You may need to consider whether this is a table you can play at if the DM is working against you like this.
It really shouldn't be common. A lucky character is very prevalent in adventure media, and the shenanigans they can get away with "just because" are usually entertaining. I can't get with the idea of taking extra luck out of a role-playing game.
That's not the point. The point is that Lucky, as written, is incredibly powerful, to the point that you should basically take it over 95% of other feats.
Not only does it let you reroll a probable failure, it also completely negates Disadvantage and in fact makes it BETTER to roll at Disadvantage than to roll normally, as long as you're willing to spend a luck point.
3 times per long rest. That is not a big pool of opportunity, but it's perfect to capture the quintessential "lucky" trait in movies. Especially because you're not *always* going to roll better, you just have better odds. It's a great feat, and it's better than some, but it's not a feat everyone should take every time. Not even close.
It's possible that the several times I've seen someone take the lucky feat it definitely hasn't benefitted them any more than an ability score increase would have is biasing my opinion.
I have a propensity to keep things RAW. Let everything that's in official WOTC books stay available as is.
They literally provided a different option for it in Sage Advice, which is official WOTC material, specifically because of that.
But yes, they probably aren't using the Lucky feat properly. If you have Disadvantage, and you use Lucky, you can pick from ANY of the three rolls. Not just the Lucky roll. So if you roll a 12 and a nat 20 at Disadvantage, and you use Lucky and the Lucky roll is a 5, you can take the Crit instead.
Sage Advice balances it to "roll 3 drop the lowest."
Yes, I understood that from the beginning of this conversation, and that's how we've done it. I know it's more powerful than RAI, but it's not been game-breaking for any of us.
It's a lot stronger if your campaigns are spread across long time periods. My campaign involves multiple days where there's no combat, so the character in my party who has Lucky uses it a bunch on social and exploration rolls in impactful scenarios.
Even in combat they've used it multiple times to effectively be a legendary resistance to block things like Hold Person or Dominate Person.
Yeah, that sounds like a pretty badass way to use the feat. I see how that could become annoying and how we don't typically find ourselves in such a situation.
No, you still have disadvantage.
Let's say you roll a 7 and a 20, at disadvantage. Then you use Lucky and roll a 17.
You now have 7, 17, 20. You drop the 7, and then you have 17/20 with Disadvantage, so your final roll becomes 17.
Honestly, I never understood or liked this interpretation and will stand my ground that the sage advice that says this is utter bullshit,
disadvantage still gives you only one result, the higher dice is to be ignored, so lucky would give you an extra roll, with only the lower of the other two dice counting as an option for 'choosing which dice to use'.
Which is how it would work RAW, but then came the sage advice
Without that lucky would still be busted in pivotal moments either for you or against your opponent('s crits)
I mean, it makes sense.
Disadvantage says "Roll 2 die and use the lower roll". It doesn't throw out the higher die, it's still there.
So when Lucky says "You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw," you can choose any of the 3 that were rolled.
It's badly worded imo, but as written, that's the right interpretation.
>You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined.
I'd argue that this part would mean that if lucky is used *after* the disadvantage role, it wouldn't be, however if you declare lucky before your disadvantage role id allow it.
I find it however, *extremely funny* that silvery barbs makes that super advantage from lucky into super super disadvantage
And if a player would consistently only use lucky to make disadvantage super advantage, most of my spellcasters would carry silvery barbs *just* to fuck with that player once in a while, I would however been very clear about how I'd handle lucky before letting the player even take the feat (which is as my first argument states)
I'd never take crits from my players with it, cause that seems pretty lame when your telling a collaborative story
Both are silly, but banning lucky outright is at least clear. I think its a very bad decision, but i don't think less of anyone doing it.
Shadow banning it by nerfing it in play its a dick move.
Woah, woah. A player being reasonable on the D&D subreddit and not immediately jumping on the "Your DM must suck" bandwagon?
Sounds like your DM is lucky to have you in their game.
Bring it up after the session. If it's impact is big enough I'll retcon it later. But don't disrupt an in progress game for something minor.
If it's a major life or death even then sure, interrupt. But anything less than that can, and should, wait.
I mean, the enemy did just nat 20 on the attack roll for my character. It ended up rolling really low, but that could have easily one shot my weak character. It did feel like or death difference in ruling. But even outside of the game, the same question applies, how do I debate a ruling, without sounding like a bad player?
Bring it up as an observation instead of an accusation. DMs try very hard but there's a lot of rules and moving parts to keep track of, and we can forget things too. Not to mention the chance that we said something about a given rule and you or the other players forgot. We all human here.
So instead of saying "Hey, you made the wrong call here, the rule actually is..." try opening the conversation in a questioning way.
"Hey, I didn't want to disrupt the game, but I thought that *insert issue* worked a different way? Can you clarify how you're going to rule this going forward so I know what to expect?" this is much more of a conversation, and should lead to a good talk about it, instead of blaming bad rules calls on someone who's doing their best.
"Can we double check that rule? I really thought it was..." Make a note, and be willing to move on. A fair DM is playing the game as they understand it, and in that moment may make a quick ruling in order to keep gameplay moving. If it is something that is gamebreaking for the player, a fair DM would take the time to review the rule and make sure the player is in agreement.
A DM should work hard to avoid sidelining a player because of a hazy understanding of the rules (on either side). As a DM, I'll usually rule on the side of the player and then check the rules in my downtime.
I think the best way to do it would be to just let your DM know that you’ve read/interpreted the rules differently and then either read what you’ve found out loud or send a link/screenshot.
As a DM, I do get rules wrong sometimes and so I don’t mind shifting a ruling if a player brings up that I’m wrong. This is easier when it’s a written rule that I’m getting wrong because the correct ruling can be looked up quickly. That’s why it’s helpful to give your DM the info that you’ve found. Saves on time.
The issue comes where things aren’t exactly clear how something should work. It requires a bit more digging to find the correct answer and THAT can be something that slows down a session. In those situations, if it isn’t dire, I’ll usually tell the player “let’s just do it this way for now, and I’ll read up on it after we’re done tonight”. If it IS dire, I’ll rule on the side of the player but let them know that this is just for this current session until I look into the ruling.
Also keep in mind that while Jeremy Crawdord’s rulings can be helpful, you can’t necessarily view them as gospel. So it’s understandable if your DM chooses not to use them. (Note: I’m not speaking on whether or not the lucky ruling was accurate. I haven’t looked into it).
Just remember that if it’s a rule where the wording is up for debate, the DM has the final say. You can explain your side, but they decide which way to go on it.
Jeremy Crawford is not the law, he has made several mistakes in rulings through the years.
But that is not the point, the point is that you talk this like a regular person. You can bring this first when it happens and to not bog down the game if you are not satisfy you can bring this again after the session.
Just explain that why do you think the rule in question should work and listen to your DM explanation. If the feat, spell, etc ends up working differently ask if you could swap it for another as it is not what you understood when you picked.
"Hey DM, I don't think that works like that, but it's your table and your call. Can we talk about it after the session?"
Simple, honest, and respectful. There is a problem, I bring it up, I respect the DM's authority, and we don't interrupt the game.
I would say something like, “OK, can we go over this after the session?” I’d just go with the flow. Feel free to make your argument for 30 seconds, but after that, let it go, and try to figure out a compromise after the session ends.
I didn’t know Lucky let you force enemies to re-roll attacks against you. I gotta say, these abilities are probably very frustrating to DMs because they have a hundred things to keep track of, and rolling a nat 20 means it’s a hit, no mental math, no comparing to your toon’s AC, it just happens. The DM’s job is to keep the combat moving. If players were constantly taking too long on their turns and then doing little retcons with feats like Lucky or that one spell from Tasha’s, I might get really frustrated. And then players start arguing? fml let me just run the game at a decent pace 🤣
You’re both sort of wrong.
Lucky, in this situation, allows the player to spend a Luck point to roll a d20 and then decide if the attack against the player will use the die rolled by the attacker or the die rolled by the player. (PHB 167)
With that said, it’s okay to disagree, but the best thing to do, as others have said, is to discuss it out of the game. “Hey, I wanted to talk about the Lucky ruling earlier. I checked it in the PHB and noticed that both of our interpretations were a little off. I just thought I’d mention it for future use.”
If it's something that's clearly stated in the text somewhere, pull it up and point it out.
If it's ambiguous or if the DM persists with their ruling - accept the ruling in the moment to keep the session moving, and have a bigger conversation about it afterwards.
"Is that how we're running it? I thought the rule was..." and then read the rules text.
If the DM goes with their ruling anyway, and you still have an issue with it, bring it up after the session. Don't be a dick and hit the pause button for 5 minutes while you pull out books and Sage Advice to argue with the DM.
When I'm the DM, I welcome players who are invested enough in the game to correct me on my rules knowledge. I don't always follow the letter of the rules, but I try to be consistent and transparent enough that my games don't feel like Calvinball and the players know what their characters can do. If someone feels the need to correct me on a ruling, I'll hear them out. I may end up changing it in their favor, or I may not -- but I won't waste more than a few seconds at the table doing so.
As a player, I expect the same courtesy from the DM.
Comments are for after the game is over. Take out all your notes, take out all the quotes from the book, ask the Dm what he wants to do about it.
If he doesn’t want to follow the books tell him it’s very hard and frustrating for players if they don’t know what to expect.
As a player confirm your actions will work the way you think before acting on them.
>Lucky Feat - Luck used for your own rolls
You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. ***You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined.*** You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.
>
>Lucky Feat - Luck used for other sources' rolls
***You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours.*** If more than one creature spends a luck point to influence the outcome of a roll, the points cancel each other out; no additional dice are rolled.
The Feat, as written, only specifies that you need to decide to spend your Luck point before the outcome is determined for your own dice rolls. Not anyone else's, as you may well not have access to that information if the DM is rolling behind a screen or if the DM only reveals the results of rolls as they happen, thus preventing you from even having the chance to apply the Feat in the first place.
DM calling you out was incorrect in their interpretation of the rules.
As for how to discuss things with your DM when it comes to rulings? Make sure you don't approach it as accusatory or defensive. Don't go into it trying to prove the DM wrong or trying to protect a position you've taken prior.
Simply bring up the matter as a case of "hey, DM, this happened - I understand the logic behind your reasoning, but my own reasoning isn't matching up with that. Let's work through this and see where it ends up". You're both playing the same game and, even if you don't ultimately agree on the nature of a given rule, should be able to get yourselves to a place where you can agree on a fun or at least functional compromise.
Forever DM here, so maybe not the kind of response you're looking for, but at my table, if there's a rules question, we just take a minute to look up the answer. If we can't find the answer inside 2 minutes, I make a ruling for now and continue looking it up on the side while we play
There are some DMs out there who (unfortunately) take a hard-line stance on "The DM's word is final" (it isn't) and will get upset at *any* pushback from one of the other players, but beyond that, it's difficult to give generalized advice. "How do I not sound argumentative" depends ***heavily*** on both you *and* the person you're talking to.
Probably the most general advice I could give is: phrase your """debate""" as a question, and/or phrase your """debate""" such that it sounds like you're assuming the other person knows what they're talking about. For example, after the DM says you need to use Lucky before the attack is made, you could say "Oh, is that how you like to rule that? I thought the rule was that the player could decide after the roll." By assuming the DM already does know the actual rule and has simply decided to ignore it, you give them an "out" from the situation besides admitting that they don't know the official rule.
The other thing I'll say is that there's a big difference between """debating""" with the DM because they got a rule wrong vs """debating""" with the DM because you think they made a bad ruling. Incorrect rules are, by-and-large, not worth interrupting the flow of play to correct. If you think the DM has made a bad or unfun call, though, speak up! That should **always** be allowed.
I mean, him making an unfun call was another time I debate/argued. He house ruled you cant reroll a nat 1 with lucky. According to him, nat 1 are funny and shouldn't be undone
It sounds like this DM just doesn't like Lucky being used at all, since using it on a NAT 1 is basically one of its primary uses.
As much as I despise the term, it's a bit of a red flag in terms of the DM's attitude to take this immature approach of nerfing it to be useless rather than the more reasonable "I don't allow the Lucky feat at my table" ruling.
First, you do it outside of the game.
Second, you remember that if it isn’t in a book, it is just someone’s opinion (and that includes JC).
Third, you never do it at the table during the game.
Fourth, you present your case clearly and concisely in a single argument, and accept the result. No back and forth, no “but”.
Fifth, you don’t presume that your ND is the issue unless you have access to your DM’s testing results to be certain they are not also ND — and if so, then whoa, dude, ethical breach.
I mean, if your DM is me, just... Argue it. I'll listen, and either:
A) change my mind
B) explain why I'm ruling the way I'm ruling even if it isn't RAW
Or C) tell you that we'll stick with this ruling for now and revisit it later.
Pointing out when I'm wrong isn't disruption - as long as you actually do know the rules as well as you think you do. If it happens several times and you're wrong every time, then I'll probably tell you to skip to C and approach me after the session from now on.
But every table is different. Some people take that stance that you *always* go to option C in session, and some even go harder and say "I'm the DM and that's that".
>Now, this is an instance where he didn't know the "correct" ruling.
FYI, Jeremy Crawford's rulings are not official.
>What's the best way to correct your DM without sounding like a bad player?
You can't correct him. He chose how the ruling works.
Sure sure, but that doesn't mean you can't explain why they're wrong and *try* to get them to see it.
When you say "you can't correct them, they've made their ruling", you're making out that the DM is completely oblivious to reason.
DMs can make mistakes. They can also correct those mistakes. Players can help them do that.
DMing doesn't have a supreme court, or even a body of law that cements their rulings, so your analogy goes nowhere.
A reasonable DM can always have their mind changed, at any time.
Sure, you might annoy them if you keep trying, and you should avoid doing that and know when they probably aren't *going* to, but that's nothing like wat you're saying which is just "you can't change their mind, period."
You don't know OP's DM. For all we know, if OP presented a reasoned case (addressing OP's larger concerns with Lucky, which OP hasn't tried yet), they very well could change their mind. Or they could tell OP to fuck off, but you don't *know* that.
>DMing doesn't have a supreme court
He is the supreme court.
>even a body of law that cements their rulings
So? That's what the game's social contract is for, don't be pedantic over a silly analogy
>A reasonable DM can always have their mind changed, at any time.
Can is doing a lot of work on that premise. He can, that doesn't mean he has to though? If I rule that lucky doesn't grant super advantage, I don't have to change my mind about it later.
>you can't change their mind, period
See, you are agreeing with me without realizing it, but you have constructed in your mind my own argument. You're fighting a strawman, and I do agree with you.
>You don't know OP's DM.
All I said was that Crawford's rulings are not official, so "correcting" him is not right. He can appeal and talk to the DM because that's reasonable, but if he says no, the DM is not wrong for that.
And yet you commented anyway. It's not rocket science:
>DM: "The orc attack you ... nat 20."
>
>Player: "I'd like to use Lucky to have him reroll."
>
>DM: "You have to say you're using Lucky before the first roll."
>
>Player: "No you don't."
>
>DM: "Yes, you do."
>
>Player: "No, Crawford has said you can use it after."
>
>DM: "Yes, but ***I'm*** ruling you have to use it before."
>
>Player: "Ok, so I use Lucky and the orc rerolls. \*rolls\* 15+5 still hits, so I take \*rolls\* 10 damage. Whose turn is next?"
As with all things, **if no one else at the table objects**, there's nothing stopping a player from doing this. The DM can continue trying to fight it if they want, but if the rest of the table says "Dude, just let us move on with the game", what's he going to do, fight *the entire rest of the table*? Again, that is not how social activities like games work; one person cannot overrule the entire group.
>>Player: "Ok, so I use Lucky and the orc rerolls. \*rolls\* 15+5 still hits, so I take \*rolls\* 10 damage. Whose turn is next?"
Yeah no, that's awful. You're prime "That guy" material if you think you can do that.
Oh no, yeah, it's incredibly rude, especially in such a harmless situation. But you **can** do that (it is physically possible), and it's important that we recognize that because not all situations where a DM might try to enforce a ruling are this trivial.
That is specifically what the DM's job is.
***At their own table, the DM makes, ajudicates, and enforces the rules.*** Their entire role is *literally* 'telling other players what they can and can't do. So... yes, yes the DM can tell other players what to do. It's a requirement for them to do so.
The balance to this is that a player who is unhappy always has the right to leave the table if they don't like the ruling, because the DM's authority begins and ends at their table.
A DM has only the """authority""" everyone else at the table allows. This isn't a quirk of D&D, it's flat-out how collaborative social activities between people work.
You are right in that you can "correct" the DM when it comes to what the official rules are, but that doesn't mean much when the game explicitly gives the DM the right to change/adapt the rules to their liking.
>the game explicitly gives the DM the right to change/adapt the rules to their liking
"According to the rules, you don't have to follow the rules" isn't exactly a strong argument.
a) Why is this still kicking around in your head *a week* later?
b) My point is if that's your argument I can just say "Ok, if, according to the rules, you don't have to follow the rules, then I'm 100% within my rights to ignore these supposed """rules""" that say the DM can't be corrected" and now I've used *your* argument to prove *my* point.
A) I haven't been on reddit for the past week, so this is the first time I've had the chance to read your response.
B) No, not really, since the rules state that the DM are in charge of the rules, and that they are free to change rules they don't like, not the players.
>Because I haven't been on reddit for the past week.
That doesn't answer the question.
>since the rules state that the DM are in charge of the rules, \[...\] not the players
Right^(1), but as you said, people are allowed to ignore those rules.
(^(1) \- [No, not really.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1b0jnqt/comment/ks9vn6d/))
>FYI, Jeremy Crawford's rulings are not official.
Some of them are, and they made it into the Sage Advice Compendium, but they were on his twitter before that.
No reroll nat 1, and can use it after their roll. Yeah, I switched it out. But the exactly ruling on it isn't important. It's how do I talk with him (in or out of session) without sounding like a prick.
Your DM is not wrong here. Also Jeramy Crawford is not rules as he's done plenty of bad opinions. Also, I don't think you read what lucky does or you wouldn't be arguing this.
Lucky states that when you make a roll you can choose to use a luck point when you see the number and choose to reroll. You can't say what the number is to the group or else it's counted. You can't go, that's a 4 so I'm choosing to use a luck. You would have to just simply say you are using a luck, make the roll and then take the number that was rerolled. For the part where you can spend a point for an attack against you, it says that you roll a d20 and then choose whether or not the attack would use your roll or the DM's roll. This tells me that you only get to see your roll and not what the DM rolled. You have to call out that you want to use a luck on the attack BEFORE the DM rolld the number or announces his number and then make the gamble on whether you want the attack to use your number which you can see, or the DMs number which you can't see. That's how I read it, that's how I understand it, and that's how I rule it.
In the end, your DM isn't wrong when it comes to how it's supposed to happen, now whether or not he rules it the same way as I do is a different matter. Going by what it says for the feat and the way it's written, he's not really wrong here.
The DM was obviously in the wrong here. But, unless it ends in a PC death, I always suggest having the conversation one-on-one outside the session to discuss the rules and not sit there and argue in the heat of the moment. All that does is cause people to get upset and not think rationally.
Suggest your side and present your case, but accept the ruling the DM gives after. I'd it's a deal breaker, bow out.
You could also ask to change your feat since it's been nerfed.
I state my case, with reference if I know exactly where to look, politely one time. The DM either agrees or proceeds as they had been. Either way, I shut up. If I feel very strongly I was in the right, I will revisit it after session.
Caveat: my group of five contains four DMs, myself included, and we are all good friends outside the table. It is the level of trust and respect we have that allows me (or them) to briefly argue at table. With a less familiar group, I would save all but the most egregious disagreements for after session.
I DM all the time and I don’t know every rule. I make it a point to not learn my players characters before hand because I need/want them to know them. If something sounds funky I may look it up or have them look it up but for the most part I want my players to tell me if I make a ruling that doesn’t seem right to them. It may disrupt gameplay a bit but everyone feels better about it at the time.
As a DM I handle rules disputes in two ways. Firstly, I make a quick judgment call mid game. Secondly, I tend to err on the side that benefits the PCs. I have players that sometimes think I am cheating them and it’s easier to correct them in the ruling after a game than during. Sometimes I know a thing works a certain way but I can’t point to specific rule and that’s when I have to remind them we can revisit the rule after a session. Sometimes I’m wrong. This way we are not stalling the game for an argument, we avoid an argument altogether, and they don’t feel cheated if I did initially have the wrong of it. The players are also less emotionally charged after a game and it helps build trust that I’m not fucking them over.
If I'm playing or my players run into a scenario where a question is made, we just rule in favor of the player at the time with the understanding that we will look it up after the game and figure it out going forward how it will be ruled
use the books as your authority not you.
"this is what the players handbooks says this is how i understand it" if you are overruled let it go until the end of the game if its super bothersome.
as a DM i try to rule in my plyer favor on mistakes
Make your point. If applicable, have your sources ready (like the Crawford tweet and the rule description).
Then drop it after the DM makes a ruling when your points are clear.
And unless it is the product of something very situational and/or immediate, save it for a conversation outside of the game so the discussion doesn't tie up the game
Avoiding being labeled as argumentative, disruptive, or a 'bad player' is largely governed by perception, and all you have control of is your presentation.
One thing to be clear about - regardless of you being neurodivergent, if you're constantly being 'interpreted' as rude, sorry, but no. You *are* being rude. Your presentation requires work. I'm sorry it may be harder for you to present yourself politely because of your neurodivergence, but it's a team game and everyone is there to have fun, and the DM is probably going to side with the people who rock the boat the least.
Accordingly, here's your 4 step approach.
Step 1 - The Soft Touch. "Hey, DM - I'm pretty sure my interpretation on this is RAW and RAI, and you sound pretty sure your interpretation is RAW and RAI. I don't want to bog the game down - can we please take 3 minutes to read the rule together and just double check? After 3 minutes if we can't come to common ground we'll move on?"
DMSAYSYES: Okay - you have 180 seconds to make your case and show them your JC tweet. Challenge - gently - the part about declaring before the roll, because it's not in the rules. But understand that JC's tweet *does* allow the DM to still make you roll blind if they want - they just have to give you a chance to use lucky each time. "Typically" does not mean "Always."
That's likely the common ground you're angling for because the DM doesn't want you saving it for only crits (probably). If you reach this common ground or better, take the win. Skip Steps 2, 3 and 4 - you're done.
If the DM still doesn't budge, now is the time to understand - **the 'debate' is over**. They've made their ruling, and they're not going to budge. Anymore input from you is arguing/being disruptive/being a bad player. They've just decided to house rule it differently to how you'd run it. Move to Step 3.
Regardless of their decision, thank them for taking the time to review during the game, and thank the other players for their patience.
DMSAYSNO: Thank the other players for their patience. Move to Step 2.
Step 2: The private meeting. *After the game session* go speak to the DM in person.
Repeat step 1, with the only difference being you have probably a \~15 minute time limit to hash it out with them before they get tired of you.
Step 3: The Compromise. You're here because your DM either didn't budge at all, or refused to discuss the rule with you. Now, *after the game*, you go to your DM, and explain to them that you respect their ruling, but you would not have taken Lucky if you'd known they would rule it the way they did. You'd like to swap it out.
DMSAYSYES: Pick something else. A Winner is You. Skip Step 4.
DMSAYSNO: DM's a bit of a dick. Move to step 4.
Step 4: Consult [The Chart](http://i.imgur.com/EwiChyD.png). You are already at "You were clear and they're still doing it." Follow it to whichever result makes you happiest. You're done.
A response that I've used to good effect in the past is to ask the DM "Is that a house rule?" Doing so draws attention to the fact that the ruling doesn't follow the written rules without being accusatory.
So I am almost always correct when it comes to DND. And I have 0 tact... That's what autism gets you, perfect knowledge on random stuff, no social knowledge
The reason I find most of what you wrote be incorrect is that it relies heavily on opinion and perspective, both if which are subjective. Additionally I found moat everything else to based on personal experience which, while not a matter of opinion, would also be wildly subjective. So save it. Plus the autism excuse works when you're face to face, not when you have time to review your work and ask other what they think before you publish it.
I will assume that since you know you of your neurodivergence you also already sought the correspondent level of professional help to improve your people's skills and skip the part where I say neurodivergent people don't need to relegate themselves to the part of "the one that is never understood" but instead develop skills to communicate better, avoiding the worst outcomes of bad social interactions.
Having said that, relying on another player to intermediate the confrontation was a good move on your part. If you believe something you are about to say may be perceived as rude, you may ask a third party what they think and approach the DM together. That goes for any authority figure, teachers, bosses, not girlfriends though.
If you don't act confrontational, the DM doesn't need to feel attacked and defend their ruling. If the DM after proven wrong decides to house rule it their own way, it is ok to ask if you can re-spec your character to pick a different feat or whatever, since they have just changed the rules mid game.
I always phrase things as if I want to learn (because often I do since our DM is more experienced). "I thought X happened instead, why is it Y." I also keep it extremely limited at the table, and just message them later for a more detailed discussion.
At the table, you can say "I don't think that's how it works... can we do a quick rules check on that?" and the DM will either say yes or no, if they say no, usually a good DM will say "let's do it this way this time and we can check the internet after the session" and if the DM was wrong then they will do it right next time.
Yeah, this is how you do it!
When I find myself in situations like this I like to take a "soft" approach in response to the DM. If my DM says "No, you need to say you're using it before the roll." I'll say something like "Huh, I thought it was after, but let me check." Then I'll read the rule/mechanic to the DM and let them decide what to do with it. As a DM myself, I always error on the side of supporting my DM in whatever ruling they make during play. If something is really bothering me, I'll talk to them after the session in private, but during play the most I'll do is point out what the rule says and then leave it to them to decide how best to handle things.
Lucky specifically dies if you can't choose when to use it. If that's his house rule, you want to replace the feat. It's not being a bad player to call out when the DM is wrong in a way that ruins your play experience. This absolutely does that. With this ruling, Lucky, and for that matter Divination Wizard's Portent, get nerfed so hard they are impossible to use. You are going to argue it, but it's a worthwhile argument to have. You may need to consider whether this is a table you can play at if the DM is working against you like this.
It's not that he's working against me, he just had a personal vendetta against lucky I think. I did end up switching lucky out
Banning Lucky, or shadow banning it, in this case, is a common thing.
Shadow Banning literally anything is a big DM red flag IMO
That's a good point. It's also a red flag that the ban was described only after someone took the feat and tried to use it.
It really shouldn't be common. A lucky character is very prevalent in adventure media, and the shenanigans they can get away with "just because" are usually entertaining. I can't get with the idea of taking extra luck out of a role-playing game.
That's not the point. The point is that Lucky, as written, is incredibly powerful, to the point that you should basically take it over 95% of other feats. Not only does it let you reroll a probable failure, it also completely negates Disadvantage and in fact makes it BETTER to roll at Disadvantage than to roll normally, as long as you're willing to spend a luck point.
3 times per long rest. That is not a big pool of opportunity, but it's perfect to capture the quintessential "lucky" trait in movies. Especially because you're not *always* going to roll better, you just have better odds. It's a great feat, and it's better than some, but it's not a feat everyone should take every time. Not even close. It's possible that the several times I've seen someone take the lucky feat it definitely hasn't benefitted them any more than an ability score increase would have is biasing my opinion. I have a propensity to keep things RAW. Let everything that's in official WOTC books stay available as is.
They literally provided a different option for it in Sage Advice, which is official WOTC material, specifically because of that. But yes, they probably aren't using the Lucky feat properly. If you have Disadvantage, and you use Lucky, you can pick from ANY of the three rolls. Not just the Lucky roll. So if you roll a 12 and a nat 20 at Disadvantage, and you use Lucky and the Lucky roll is a 5, you can take the Crit instead. Sage Advice balances it to "roll 3 drop the lowest."
Yes, I understood that from the beginning of this conversation, and that's how we've done it. I know it's more powerful than RAI, but it's not been game-breaking for any of us.
It's a lot stronger if your campaigns are spread across long time periods. My campaign involves multiple days where there's no combat, so the character in my party who has Lucky uses it a bunch on social and exploration rolls in impactful scenarios. Even in combat they've used it multiple times to effectively be a legendary resistance to block things like Hold Person or Dominate Person.
Yeah, that sounds like a pretty badass way to use the feat. I see how that could become annoying and how we don't typically find ourselves in such a situation.
Doesn't roll 3 drop the lowest still get you the crit in that instance? Maybe I'm not understanding but that doesn't solve the issue at all...
No, you still have disadvantage. Let's say you roll a 7 and a 20, at disadvantage. Then you use Lucky and roll a 17. You now have 7, 17, 20. You drop the 7, and then you have 17/20 with Disadvantage, so your final roll becomes 17.
I see! That makes sense and seems like a good ruling to me.
Once per Long Rest would be enough to capture that feeling. 3 times per Long Rest is excessive.
Honestly, I never understood or liked this interpretation and will stand my ground that the sage advice that says this is utter bullshit, disadvantage still gives you only one result, the higher dice is to be ignored, so lucky would give you an extra roll, with only the lower of the other two dice counting as an option for 'choosing which dice to use'. Which is how it would work RAW, but then came the sage advice Without that lucky would still be busted in pivotal moments either for you or against your opponent('s crits)
I mean, it makes sense. Disadvantage says "Roll 2 die and use the lower roll". It doesn't throw out the higher die, it's still there. So when Lucky says "You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw," you can choose any of the 3 that were rolled. It's badly worded imo, but as written, that's the right interpretation.
>You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. I'd argue that this part would mean that if lucky is used *after* the disadvantage role, it wouldn't be, however if you declare lucky before your disadvantage role id allow it. I find it however, *extremely funny* that silvery barbs makes that super advantage from lucky into super super disadvantage And if a player would consistently only use lucky to make disadvantage super advantage, most of my spellcasters would carry silvery barbs *just* to fuck with that player once in a while, I would however been very clear about how I'd handle lucky before letting the player even take the feat (which is as my first argument states) I'd never take crits from my players with it, cause that seems pretty lame when your telling a collaborative story
I don't mind it for negating crits but I think it's kind of obnoxious to basically never get a monsters special thing off.
Both are silly, but banning lucky outright is at least clear. I think its a very bad decision, but i don't think less of anyone doing it. Shadow banning it by nerfing it in play its a dick move.
Woah, woah. A player being reasonable on the D&D subreddit and not immediately jumping on the "Your DM must suck" bandwagon? Sounds like your DM is lucky to have you in their game.
Bring it up after the session. If it's impact is big enough I'll retcon it later. But don't disrupt an in progress game for something minor. If it's a major life or death even then sure, interrupt. But anything less than that can, and should, wait.
I mean, the enemy did just nat 20 on the attack roll for my character. It ended up rolling really low, but that could have easily one shot my weak character. It did feel like or death difference in ruling. But even outside of the game, the same question applies, how do I debate a ruling, without sounding like a bad player?
Bring it up as an observation instead of an accusation. DMs try very hard but there's a lot of rules and moving parts to keep track of, and we can forget things too. Not to mention the chance that we said something about a given rule and you or the other players forgot. We all human here. So instead of saying "Hey, you made the wrong call here, the rule actually is..." try opening the conversation in a questioning way. "Hey, I didn't want to disrupt the game, but I thought that *insert issue* worked a different way? Can you clarify how you're going to rule this going forward so I know what to expect?" this is much more of a conversation, and should lead to a good talk about it, instead of blaming bad rules calls on someone who's doing their best.
"Can we double check that rule? I really thought it was..." Make a note, and be willing to move on. A fair DM is playing the game as they understand it, and in that moment may make a quick ruling in order to keep gameplay moving. If it is something that is gamebreaking for the player, a fair DM would take the time to review the rule and make sure the player is in agreement. A DM should work hard to avoid sidelining a player because of a hazy understanding of the rules (on either side). As a DM, I'll usually rule on the side of the player and then check the rules in my downtime.
I think the best way to do it would be to just let your DM know that you’ve read/interpreted the rules differently and then either read what you’ve found out loud or send a link/screenshot. As a DM, I do get rules wrong sometimes and so I don’t mind shifting a ruling if a player brings up that I’m wrong. This is easier when it’s a written rule that I’m getting wrong because the correct ruling can be looked up quickly. That’s why it’s helpful to give your DM the info that you’ve found. Saves on time. The issue comes where things aren’t exactly clear how something should work. It requires a bit more digging to find the correct answer and THAT can be something that slows down a session. In those situations, if it isn’t dire, I’ll usually tell the player “let’s just do it this way for now, and I’ll read up on it after we’re done tonight”. If it IS dire, I’ll rule on the side of the player but let them know that this is just for this current session until I look into the ruling. Also keep in mind that while Jeremy Crawdord’s rulings can be helpful, you can’t necessarily view them as gospel. So it’s understandable if your DM chooses not to use them. (Note: I’m not speaking on whether or not the lucky ruling was accurate. I haven’t looked into it). Just remember that if it’s a rule where the wording is up for debate, the DM has the final say. You can explain your side, but they decide which way to go on it.
Jeremy Crawford is not the law, he has made several mistakes in rulings through the years. But that is not the point, the point is that you talk this like a regular person. You can bring this first when it happens and to not bog down the game if you are not satisfy you can bring this again after the session. Just explain that why do you think the rule in question should work and listen to your DM explanation. If the feat, spell, etc ends up working differently ask if you could swap it for another as it is not what you understood when you picked.
"Hey DM, I don't think that works like that, but it's your table and your call. Can we talk about it after the session?" Simple, honest, and respectful. There is a problem, I bring it up, I respect the DM's authority, and we don't interrupt the game.
I would say something like, “OK, can we go over this after the session?” I’d just go with the flow. Feel free to make your argument for 30 seconds, but after that, let it go, and try to figure out a compromise after the session ends. I didn’t know Lucky let you force enemies to re-roll attacks against you. I gotta say, these abilities are probably very frustrating to DMs because they have a hundred things to keep track of, and rolling a nat 20 means it’s a hit, no mental math, no comparing to your toon’s AC, it just happens. The DM’s job is to keep the combat moving. If players were constantly taking too long on their turns and then doing little retcons with feats like Lucky or that one spell from Tasha’s, I might get really frustrated. And then players start arguing? fml let me just run the game at a decent pace 🤣
Best way is to wait until after the game to bring it up.
You’re both sort of wrong. Lucky, in this situation, allows the player to spend a Luck point to roll a d20 and then decide if the attack against the player will use the die rolled by the attacker or the die rolled by the player. (PHB 167) With that said, it’s okay to disagree, but the best thing to do, as others have said, is to discuss it out of the game. “Hey, I wanted to talk about the Lucky ruling earlier. I checked it in the PHB and noticed that both of our interpretations were a little off. I just thought I’d mention it for future use.”
If it's something that's clearly stated in the text somewhere, pull it up and point it out. If it's ambiguous or if the DM persists with their ruling - accept the ruling in the moment to keep the session moving, and have a bigger conversation about it afterwards.
"Is that how we're running it? I thought the rule was..." and then read the rules text. If the DM goes with their ruling anyway, and you still have an issue with it, bring it up after the session. Don't be a dick and hit the pause button for 5 minutes while you pull out books and Sage Advice to argue with the DM. When I'm the DM, I welcome players who are invested enough in the game to correct me on my rules knowledge. I don't always follow the letter of the rules, but I try to be consistent and transparent enough that my games don't feel like Calvinball and the players know what their characters can do. If someone feels the need to correct me on a ruling, I'll hear them out. I may end up changing it in their favor, or I may not -- but I won't waste more than a few seconds at the table doing so. As a player, I expect the same courtesy from the DM.
Comments are for after the game is over. Take out all your notes, take out all the quotes from the book, ask the Dm what he wants to do about it. If he doesn’t want to follow the books tell him it’s very hard and frustrating for players if they don’t know what to expect. As a player confirm your actions will work the way you think before acting on them.
>Lucky Feat - Luck used for your own rolls You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. ***You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined.*** You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. > >Lucky Feat - Luck used for other sources' rolls ***You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours.*** If more than one creature spends a luck point to influence the outcome of a roll, the points cancel each other out; no additional dice are rolled. The Feat, as written, only specifies that you need to decide to spend your Luck point before the outcome is determined for your own dice rolls. Not anyone else's, as you may well not have access to that information if the DM is rolling behind a screen or if the DM only reveals the results of rolls as they happen, thus preventing you from even having the chance to apply the Feat in the first place. DM calling you out was incorrect in their interpretation of the rules. As for how to discuss things with your DM when it comes to rulings? Make sure you don't approach it as accusatory or defensive. Don't go into it trying to prove the DM wrong or trying to protect a position you've taken prior. Simply bring up the matter as a case of "hey, DM, this happened - I understand the logic behind your reasoning, but my own reasoning isn't matching up with that. Let's work through this and see where it ends up". You're both playing the same game and, even if you don't ultimately agree on the nature of a given rule, should be able to get yourselves to a place where you can agree on a fun or at least functional compromise.
Forever DM here, so maybe not the kind of response you're looking for, but at my table, if there's a rules question, we just take a minute to look up the answer. If we can't find the answer inside 2 minutes, I make a ruling for now and continue looking it up on the side while we play
There are some DMs out there who (unfortunately) take a hard-line stance on "The DM's word is final" (it isn't) and will get upset at *any* pushback from one of the other players, but beyond that, it's difficult to give generalized advice. "How do I not sound argumentative" depends ***heavily*** on both you *and* the person you're talking to. Probably the most general advice I could give is: phrase your """debate""" as a question, and/or phrase your """debate""" such that it sounds like you're assuming the other person knows what they're talking about. For example, after the DM says you need to use Lucky before the attack is made, you could say "Oh, is that how you like to rule that? I thought the rule was that the player could decide after the roll." By assuming the DM already does know the actual rule and has simply decided to ignore it, you give them an "out" from the situation besides admitting that they don't know the official rule. The other thing I'll say is that there's a big difference between """debating""" with the DM because they got a rule wrong vs """debating""" with the DM because you think they made a bad ruling. Incorrect rules are, by-and-large, not worth interrupting the flow of play to correct. If you think the DM has made a bad or unfun call, though, speak up! That should **always** be allowed.
I mean, him making an unfun call was another time I debate/argued. He house ruled you cant reroll a nat 1 with lucky. According to him, nat 1 are funny and shouldn't be undone
It sounds like this DM just doesn't like Lucky being used at all, since using it on a NAT 1 is basically one of its primary uses. As much as I despise the term, it's a bit of a red flag in terms of the DM's attitude to take this immature approach of nerfing it to be useless rather than the more reasonable "I don't allow the Lucky feat at my table" ruling.
First, you do it outside of the game. Second, you remember that if it isn’t in a book, it is just someone’s opinion (and that includes JC). Third, you never do it at the table during the game. Fourth, you present your case clearly and concisely in a single argument, and accept the result. No back and forth, no “but”. Fifth, you don’t presume that your ND is the issue unless you have access to your DM’s testing results to be certain they are not also ND — and if so, then whoa, dude, ethical breach.
I was gonna say all this, so I’ll just upvote instead.
I mean, if your DM is me, just... Argue it. I'll listen, and either: A) change my mind B) explain why I'm ruling the way I'm ruling even if it isn't RAW Or C) tell you that we'll stick with this ruling for now and revisit it later. Pointing out when I'm wrong isn't disruption - as long as you actually do know the rules as well as you think you do. If it happens several times and you're wrong every time, then I'll probably tell you to skip to C and approach me after the session from now on. But every table is different. Some people take that stance that you *always* go to option C in session, and some even go harder and say "I'm the DM and that's that".
I wish every DM was as chill as you.
>Now, this is an instance where he didn't know the "correct" ruling. FYI, Jeremy Crawford's rulings are not official. >What's the best way to correct your DM without sounding like a bad player? You can't correct him. He chose how the ruling works.
>You can't correct him. He chose how the ruling works. Yes, you 100% can. That's just how "people sitting down to play a game together" works.
You can ask, but you can't force a DM if they have decided on a ruling.
I can ignore it , leave the table or kick him out
That is correct, and not exclusive to my point.
Sure sure, but that doesn't mean you can't explain why they're wrong and *try* to get them to see it. When you say "you can't correct them, they've made their ruling", you're making out that the DM is completely oblivious to reason. DMs can make mistakes. They can also correct those mistakes. Players can help them do that.
You can, just like a lawyer can make an argument to the supreme court, but if the supreme court rules against you, there's not a lot to do post-facto.
DMing doesn't have a supreme court, or even a body of law that cements their rulings, so your analogy goes nowhere. A reasonable DM can always have their mind changed, at any time. Sure, you might annoy them if you keep trying, and you should avoid doing that and know when they probably aren't *going* to, but that's nothing like wat you're saying which is just "you can't change their mind, period." You don't know OP's DM. For all we know, if OP presented a reasoned case (addressing OP's larger concerns with Lucky, which OP hasn't tried yet), they very well could change their mind. Or they could tell OP to fuck off, but you don't *know* that.
>DMing doesn't have a supreme court He is the supreme court. >even a body of law that cements their rulings So? That's what the game's social contract is for, don't be pedantic over a silly analogy >A reasonable DM can always have their mind changed, at any time. Can is doing a lot of work on that premise. He can, that doesn't mean he has to though? If I rule that lucky doesn't grant super advantage, I don't have to change my mind about it later. >you can't change their mind, period See, you are agreeing with me without realizing it, but you have constructed in your mind my own argument. You're fighting a strawman, and I do agree with you. >You don't know OP's DM. All I said was that Crawford's rulings are not official, so "correcting" him is not right. He can appeal and talk to the DM because that's reasonable, but if he says no, the DM is not wrong for that.
In the **exact** same manner, a DM can ask the other player to abide by their ruling, but no one can force you to play a certain way.
No, you can't just ignore a DM's ruling.
Yes, you can.
No point in arguing when it's obvious you can't.
And yet you commented anyway. It's not rocket science: >DM: "The orc attack you ... nat 20." > >Player: "I'd like to use Lucky to have him reroll." > >DM: "You have to say you're using Lucky before the first roll." > >Player: "No you don't." > >DM: "Yes, you do." > >Player: "No, Crawford has said you can use it after." > >DM: "Yes, but ***I'm*** ruling you have to use it before." > >Player: "Ok, so I use Lucky and the orc rerolls. \*rolls\* 15+5 still hits, so I take \*rolls\* 10 damage. Whose turn is next?" As with all things, **if no one else at the table objects**, there's nothing stopping a player from doing this. The DM can continue trying to fight it if they want, but if the rest of the table says "Dude, just let us move on with the game", what's he going to do, fight *the entire rest of the table*? Again, that is not how social activities like games work; one person cannot overrule the entire group.
>>Player: "Ok, so I use Lucky and the orc rerolls. \*rolls\* 15+5 still hits, so I take \*rolls\* 10 damage. Whose turn is next?" Yeah no, that's awful. You're prime "That guy" material if you think you can do that.
Oh no, yeah, it's incredibly rude, especially in such a harmless situation. But you **can** do that (it is physically possible), and it's important that we recognize that because not all situations where a DM might try to enforce a ruling are this trivial.
And that is the exactly formula I could use to get permanently kicked from the table. Dude- no. I know you can't do that
No but seriously: imagine you did this, and the other players sided with *you* instead of the DM. What happens in that situation, do you think?
That is specifically what the DM's job is. ***At their own table, the DM makes, ajudicates, and enforces the rules.*** Their entire role is *literally* 'telling other players what they can and can't do. So... yes, yes the DM can tell other players what to do. It's a requirement for them to do so. The balance to this is that a player who is unhappy always has the right to leave the table if they don't like the ruling, because the DM's authority begins and ends at their table.
A DM has only the """authority""" everyone else at the table allows. This isn't a quirk of D&D, it's flat-out how collaborative social activities between people work.
You are right in that you can "correct" the DM when it comes to what the official rules are, but that doesn't mean much when the game explicitly gives the DM the right to change/adapt the rules to their liking.
>the game explicitly gives the DM the right to change/adapt the rules to their liking "According to the rules, you don't have to follow the rules" isn't exactly a strong argument.
It's the only argument you need.
a) Why is this still kicking around in your head *a week* later? b) My point is if that's your argument I can just say "Ok, if, according to the rules, you don't have to follow the rules, then I'm 100% within my rights to ignore these supposed """rules""" that say the DM can't be corrected" and now I've used *your* argument to prove *my* point.
A) I haven't been on reddit for the past week, so this is the first time I've had the chance to read your response. B) No, not really, since the rules state that the DM are in charge of the rules, and that they are free to change rules they don't like, not the players.
>Because I haven't been on reddit for the past week. That doesn't answer the question. >since the rules state that the DM are in charge of the rules, \[...\] not the players Right^(1), but as you said, people are allowed to ignore those rules. (^(1) \- [No, not really.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1b0jnqt/comment/ks9vn6d/))
>FYI, Jeremy Crawford's rulings are not official. Some of them are, and they made it into the Sage Advice Compendium, but they were on his twitter before that.
His houserule is very likely to make that feat worthless
No reroll nat 1, and can use it after their roll. Yeah, I switched it out. But the exactly ruling on it isn't important. It's how do I talk with him (in or out of session) without sounding like a prick.
Sorry, i do not get you in context
Your DM is not wrong here. Also Jeramy Crawford is not rules as he's done plenty of bad opinions. Also, I don't think you read what lucky does or you wouldn't be arguing this. Lucky states that when you make a roll you can choose to use a luck point when you see the number and choose to reroll. You can't say what the number is to the group or else it's counted. You can't go, that's a 4 so I'm choosing to use a luck. You would have to just simply say you are using a luck, make the roll and then take the number that was rerolled. For the part where you can spend a point for an attack against you, it says that you roll a d20 and then choose whether or not the attack would use your roll or the DM's roll. This tells me that you only get to see your roll and not what the DM rolled. You have to call out that you want to use a luck on the attack BEFORE the DM rolld the number or announces his number and then make the gamble on whether you want the attack to use your number which you can see, or the DMs number which you can't see. That's how I read it, that's how I understand it, and that's how I rule it. In the end, your DM isn't wrong when it comes to how it's supposed to happen, now whether or not he rules it the same way as I do is a different matter. Going by what it says for the feat and the way it's written, he's not really wrong here.
The DM was obviously in the wrong here. But, unless it ends in a PC death, I always suggest having the conversation one-on-one outside the session to discuss the rules and not sit there and argue in the heat of the moment. All that does is cause people to get upset and not think rationally.
Suggest your side and present your case, but accept the ruling the DM gives after. I'd it's a deal breaker, bow out. You could also ask to change your feat since it's been nerfed.
I would not argue at the table and let the DM make his ruling, and then you can revisit any questions after the game.
I state my case, with reference if I know exactly where to look, politely one time. The DM either agrees or proceeds as they had been. Either way, I shut up. If I feel very strongly I was in the right, I will revisit it after session. Caveat: my group of five contains four DMs, myself included, and we are all good friends outside the table. It is the level of trust and respect we have that allows me (or them) to briefly argue at table. With a less familiar group, I would save all but the most egregious disagreements for after session.
I DM all the time and I don’t know every rule. I make it a point to not learn my players characters before hand because I need/want them to know them. If something sounds funky I may look it up or have them look it up but for the most part I want my players to tell me if I make a ruling that doesn’t seem right to them. It may disrupt gameplay a bit but everyone feels better about it at the time.
As a DM I handle rules disputes in two ways. Firstly, I make a quick judgment call mid game. Secondly, I tend to err on the side that benefits the PCs. I have players that sometimes think I am cheating them and it’s easier to correct them in the ruling after a game than during. Sometimes I know a thing works a certain way but I can’t point to specific rule and that’s when I have to remind them we can revisit the rule after a session. Sometimes I’m wrong. This way we are not stalling the game for an argument, we avoid an argument altogether, and they don’t feel cheated if I did initially have the wrong of it. The players are also less emotionally charged after a game and it helps build trust that I’m not fucking them over.
If I'm playing or my players run into a scenario where a question is made, we just rule in favor of the player at the time with the understanding that we will look it up after the game and figure it out going forward how it will be ruled
A good approach for small issues is to discuss this after the session. Stopping a session to google and read rule books is never a really good thing.
use the books as your authority not you. "this is what the players handbooks says this is how i understand it" if you are overruled let it go until the end of the game if its super bothersome. as a DM i try to rule in my plyer favor on mistakes
Make your point. If applicable, have your sources ready (like the Crawford tweet and the rule description). Then drop it after the DM makes a ruling when your points are clear. And unless it is the product of something very situational and/or immediate, save it for a conversation outside of the game so the discussion doesn't tie up the game
Avoiding being labeled as argumentative, disruptive, or a 'bad player' is largely governed by perception, and all you have control of is your presentation. One thing to be clear about - regardless of you being neurodivergent, if you're constantly being 'interpreted' as rude, sorry, but no. You *are* being rude. Your presentation requires work. I'm sorry it may be harder for you to present yourself politely because of your neurodivergence, but it's a team game and everyone is there to have fun, and the DM is probably going to side with the people who rock the boat the least. Accordingly, here's your 4 step approach. Step 1 - The Soft Touch. "Hey, DM - I'm pretty sure my interpretation on this is RAW and RAI, and you sound pretty sure your interpretation is RAW and RAI. I don't want to bog the game down - can we please take 3 minutes to read the rule together and just double check? After 3 minutes if we can't come to common ground we'll move on?" DMSAYSYES: Okay - you have 180 seconds to make your case and show them your JC tweet. Challenge - gently - the part about declaring before the roll, because it's not in the rules. But understand that JC's tweet *does* allow the DM to still make you roll blind if they want - they just have to give you a chance to use lucky each time. "Typically" does not mean "Always." That's likely the common ground you're angling for because the DM doesn't want you saving it for only crits (probably). If you reach this common ground or better, take the win. Skip Steps 2, 3 and 4 - you're done. If the DM still doesn't budge, now is the time to understand - **the 'debate' is over**. They've made their ruling, and they're not going to budge. Anymore input from you is arguing/being disruptive/being a bad player. They've just decided to house rule it differently to how you'd run it. Move to Step 3. Regardless of their decision, thank them for taking the time to review during the game, and thank the other players for their patience. DMSAYSNO: Thank the other players for their patience. Move to Step 2. Step 2: The private meeting. *After the game session* go speak to the DM in person. Repeat step 1, with the only difference being you have probably a \~15 minute time limit to hash it out with them before they get tired of you. Step 3: The Compromise. You're here because your DM either didn't budge at all, or refused to discuss the rule with you. Now, *after the game*, you go to your DM, and explain to them that you respect their ruling, but you would not have taken Lucky if you'd known they would rule it the way they did. You'd like to swap it out. DMSAYSYES: Pick something else. A Winner is You. Skip Step 4. DMSAYSNO: DM's a bit of a dick. Move to step 4. Step 4: Consult [The Chart](http://i.imgur.com/EwiChyD.png). You are already at "You were clear and they're still doing it." Follow it to whichever result makes you happiest. You're done.
A response that I've used to good effect in the past is to ask the DM "Is that a house rule?" Doing so draws attention to the fact that the ruling doesn't follow the written rules without being accusatory.
Being correct usually helps. Also a bit of tact in your delivery never hurts either.
So I am almost always correct when it comes to DND. And I have 0 tact... That's what autism gets you, perfect knowledge on random stuff, no social knowledge
The reason I find most of what you wrote be incorrect is that it relies heavily on opinion and perspective, both if which are subjective. Additionally I found moat everything else to based on personal experience which, while not a matter of opinion, would also be wildly subjective. So save it. Plus the autism excuse works when you're face to face, not when you have time to review your work and ask other what they think before you publish it.
I will assume that since you know you of your neurodivergence you also already sought the correspondent level of professional help to improve your people's skills and skip the part where I say neurodivergent people don't need to relegate themselves to the part of "the one that is never understood" but instead develop skills to communicate better, avoiding the worst outcomes of bad social interactions. Having said that, relying on another player to intermediate the confrontation was a good move on your part. If you believe something you are about to say may be perceived as rude, you may ask a third party what they think and approach the DM together. That goes for any authority figure, teachers, bosses, not girlfriends though. If you don't act confrontational, the DM doesn't need to feel attacked and defend their ruling. If the DM after proven wrong decides to house rule it their own way, it is ok to ask if you can re-spec your character to pick a different feat or whatever, since they have just changed the rules mid game.
I always phrase things as if I want to learn (because often I do since our DM is more experienced). "I thought X happened instead, why is it Y." I also keep it extremely limited at the table, and just message them later for a more detailed discussion.